Home » Featured »Missouri »Politics/Policy »Sunday Poll » Currently Reading:

Sunday Poll: Support or Oppose Missouri Eliminating Permits/Training to Conceal Carry?

September 18, 2016 Featured, Missouri, Politics/Policy, Sunday Poll 4 Comments
Please vote below
Please vote below

The Missouri legislature, controlled by Republicans, overrode bills that Governor Nixon, a Democrat, had vetoed earlier in the year. Including one involving guns:

Previously, gun owners could carry a concealed weapon in public by passing a criminal background check and completing a gun safety training class in order to get a permit. 

On the final day of the 2016 legislative session, lawmakers approved a bill eliminating those requirements and allowing someone to carry a concealed firearm in public without a permit.

Nixon vetoed the bill because he said it would allow “individuals to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they have been or would be denied a permit because their background check revealed criminal offenses or caused the sheriff to believe they posed a danger.”

Joining Nixon in opposing the bill were groups representing law enforcement officers around the state, such as the Missouri Police Chiefs Association, along with the state’s four Catholic bishops. 

Proponents have argued that the change is about public safety. The legislation, according to the National Rifle Association, “seeks to expand the fundamental right to self-defense of Missourians and strengthen their ability to protect themselves and their families.” (Kansas City Star)

Some additional specifics:

The expanded right to concealed carry takes effect Jan. 1. Changes in rules for “stand your ground” are effective Oct. 14.

The only section that became law immediately with Wednesday’s override vote says that service personnel whose concealed-carry permits expire while they are on active duty can get renewals without penalty for two months after discharge. (Post-Dispatch)

Below is today’s poll question:

The poll will be open until 8pm tonight — unless I see a spike in traffic that suggests one side or the other is rally people to influence the outcome. If that occurs, the poll will be closed immediately. However, I do expect a higher than usual number of responses. This is a non-scientific poll.

— Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "4 comments" on this Article:

  1. JZ71 says:

    There are two very different parts to this law (and poll), the right to carry concealed and the right to carry without training. I don’t have a problem with concealed carry – criminals are not going to pay attention to it, in the first place, it just protects law-abiding citizens who do choose to carry – but I do have a problem with no requirements for training. We require training to operate a motor vehicle, to obtain a hunting license or to cut hair, so it makes absolutely no sense to not require training to “operate” a gun (although the same argument can be made for being a parent)!

    I get it, people do not like being told what they can or cannot do, but part of living in a society, any society, is a basic framework of rules that define “good” behavior and “bad” behavior. And that gets to the scariest part of the new law, the “right” to “stand your ground” based on YOUR interpretation and perceptions of any situation. We have enough trouble trying to figure out the boundaries for police (who ARE, supposedly, trained) – I have no desire to “trust” Billy Bob’s judgement after a few beers . . .

     
  2. Hunter says:

    Oh come the **** on. This is clearly one sided as you didn’t show the full explanation from both sides. You still have to go through the background check to buy the gun. Illegally acquisition and possession of a firearm is still a felony. But if you go through the legal process, you can carry it without a permit. That’s what the bill is.

     
    • Mark Zaricor says:

      First off, if you’ve had one good background check, why is there a problem with having a second one? It is possible something has changed in a person’s life that would not let them pass a second check. Having a system in place that would check that on a regular basis does not sound like a bad thing to me.

      Second point: just because someone can purchase a gun does not mean they know how to safely operate it. I’m not talking about the range or hunting: pulling a gun to protect yourself in a crowded mall is a very different situation. Training should be required for these situations. Granted, a CCW class will only get you so far, but the same could be said for, say, driving a car: when you first get your license, it proves you know the bare minimum to get the job done. Why would you insist on someone driving take a test to prove they can operate a car safely, but not a gun you can hide in your waistband?

       
  3. Mark-AL says:

    Timely post, right before the election, an issue I’ve wrestled with in that I’m preparing to relocate most of my family from a country, Germany, that has more restrictive firearms regulations than the city/state (Plano, TX) where we’ll be moving. Guns are big in Texas and many Texans are headstrong and will use them! I consider firearm ownership in TX and in the US in general to be virtually unregulated and potentially self-destructive. The Missouri concealed-carry law only compounds the problem! (IMO)

    “Guns among citizens” in Germany is restricted to seemingly responsible adults. Convicted felons, mentally disabled and others who are considered unreliable are denied ownership. And to own a gun in Germany, an applicant has to prove necessity. Self defense is not a legitimate reason. And concealed carry is limited to persons at risk. One permit covers ONE firearm. It’s not a perfect law, but it attempts to deny ownership to those who have proven to be unreliable and reckless.

    My oldest son will begin his freshman year to study cello in Amsterdam next semester, and the thought of leaving him 5000 miles “behind” is difficult but allayed knowing that it’s a fairly conservative country with noticeably strict gun restrictions. In Amsterdam guns are limited to hunters, target shooter and law enforcement. Self defense is not a valid reason to own guns. And here’s the difference: in Amsterdam, gun owners must attend gun-safety classes and spend x-hours a year at a certified shooting range. Permits are not issued for automatic weapons, and there’s a 5-weapon restriction. Convicted felons, drug addicts and those with mental illness are denied legal ownership.

    I am one who favors strict government regulations when it comes to gun ownership. Virtually unregulated concealed carry will lead to more violence, more domestic terrorism and certainly more lethal belligerent confrontations. Don’t believe me? Eyes wide open at all the gun violence happening RIGHT NOW in St Louis and Kansas City!!!!!

    IMO

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



FACEBOOK POSTS

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe